Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – All the present appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2017, G.R. No. 2618 of 2014, arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No. 225 of 2014 dated 26.12.2014, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act and held five accused persons guilty, including the appellants and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence under Section 364 IPC and, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days each. All the five convicts and all the accused including the appellants have further been directed to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo S.I. for 30 days each for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for 15 days. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts, leading to filing of these appeals are, as under: –

2.1. On 25.12.2014, the deceased brother of the informant, namely Baiju Yadav, was going to the village-Bella on his motorcycle. At about 05:00 pm, all the accused persons along with Kali Yadav, Jaggarnath Yadav and Aravind Yadav together surrounded him at the Bella Bridge and kidnapped him along with his motorcycle and, at that time, the informant informed about this occurrence to the local Police Station and, on 26.12.2014, the informant came to know that the dead body of his brother Baiju Yadav was lying near Pairgaha Chowk and then he went there and identified the body of his brother. The cause of occurrence is a land-dispute with Mahendra Yadav and the cases of land-dispute between them was taken care of by the deceased Baiju Yadav. It is further stated that one of the accused Aravind Yadav was an associate of Kali Yadav and they had committed this occurrence and his brother was murdered by firing bullet shots on his body.

2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer started the investigation and during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2017, G.R. No. 2618 of 2014.

3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Udit Narayan Singh assisted by Mr. Gajendra Kr. Singh in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 2020 and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

3.1. We have also heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State in all other appeals.

4. Learned counsels appearing for the respective appellants mainly submit that though it is alleged that Baiju Yadav was kidnapped at about 05:00 pm on 25.12.2014, the F.I.R. with regard to the said incident was not immediately filed by the informant Lattu Yadav or the other so-called eye-witnesses and, only on the next day i.e. on 26.12.2014, after the dead body of the deceased Baiju Yadav was found, F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, the conduct of the informant and near relatives of the deceased was unnatural. It is further submitted that, if the theory of kidnapping is not believed by this Court, there is no witness to the killing of the deceased by the appellants/convicts. Even otherwise, the present is a case of circumstantial ev